It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So who the heck ever said "Pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions?

page: 57
17
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


Ah there is Anok, afraid of physics and has too much of an interesting real life to read 2 pages back. And then lying about me not telling him where to read my question. Nice of you to join in.

Yes, this seems to be the case. When ever he's responded to with cited sources, he disappears for awhile with no response, but eventually resurfaces somewhere.




posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


Ah there is Anok, afraid of physics and has too much of an interesting real life to read 2 pages back. And then lying about me not telling him where to read my question. Nice of you to join in.

Yes, this seems to be the case. When ever he's responded to with cited sources, he disappears for awhile with no response, but eventually resurfaces somewhere.


Well , that post alone shows why -PLB- is really here , to create arguements - diverting the thread from the subject.

ANOK is probably sick of arguing with this troll , and being wise by not engaging in his pathetic little drama .

I`m wondering where -PLB- has gone , he seems to have dissapeared for a while with no response.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by GenRadek
 


" This was done on the observations of severe instability of the building, which was exhibiting all the signs of impending collapse, be it a local collapse or global collapse "

Any evidence of this severe structural damage ? Any footage of these "signs of impending collapse" ? I have still not seen any evidence of this extreme damage you OSers keep harping on about , the structural integrity of tower 7 was not compromised , if it was , then please , provide me with some hard evidence of that.

Also ...... you`re not looking at that quote hard enough. Why would the fire dept listen to Larry Silverstein in this situation ?

(Businessman = compulsive liar)

Have you read any of this thread? How about this?



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   


Have you read any of this thread? How about this?


I have , but i dont know what you are getting at , are you saying that this is evidence of extreme structural damage compromising the structural integrity of WTC 7 ?



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster


Have you read any of this thread? How about this?


I have , but i dont know what you are getting at , are you saying that this is evidence of extreme structural damage compromising the structural integrity of WTC 7 ?


Uhh--what? Yes, I'm saying that this is evidence that WTC 7 had suffered extreme structural damage. You believe the fire chiefs were lying?



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Yeah , insult a fire fighter , like that wasnt your only reason for bringing it up
you`re taking this to a new low.

If tower 7 was leaning where is the footage ?

If tower 7 was leaning why did it fall straight down ?


Well what was this then?


The fireman in that video does not seem to know what day it is, never mind what structural integrity is , he is clearly just as confused as everyone else.


No no, of course you didnt insult him.


Well if you watched the collapse you will notice it fell with a distinct lean towards the "south" side. After the collapse you see the north face of the building on top of the rubble.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


No , they were TOLD that it was going to collapse , so they did their job and moved out. That is evidence of nothing but the cheifs doing their job right.

If WTC 7 had suffered severe structural damage , to the point of leaning , as some people claim , then why wasnt it caught in the hours of footage out there on the web ? Infact , why cant anyone actually prove it ?



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Demigodly

This is an inferno
www.youtube.com...

The Windsor Tower burned for 24 hrs and never collapsed.

If I'm a 'truther' does that make you a 'falser'?


And what was left standing? Oh yes, the steel reenforced concrete core. What happened to the rest of the building? It collapsed after being on fire for 3 hours. Where was the comparable core in the WTC7?

As for being a "truther", truthers seem to put out quite a bit of lies. Why is that? I believe it is an ironic label.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by RockLobster


Have you read any of this thread? How about this?


I have , but i dont know what you are getting at , are you saying that this is evidence of extreme structural damage compromising the structural integrity of WTC 7 ?


Uhh--what? Yes, I'm saying that this is evidence that WTC 7 had suffered extreme structural damage. You believe the fire chiefs were lying?



Please. 'Extreme' structural damage to one side yet the building collapses straight down into its own footprint at freefall. How exactly does that happen in your world? The WTC3,4,5,6 buildings all sustained a hell of a lot more collateral damage/fires, yet they still stood!
edit on 7-4-2012 by Demigodly because: add-on



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


No , they were TOLD that it was going to collapse , so they did their job and moved out. That is evidence of nothing but the cheifs doing their job right.

If WTC 7 had suffered severe structural damage , to the point of leaning , as some people claim , then why wasnt it caught in the hours of footage out there on the web ? Infact , why cant anyone actually prove it ?



Where did they say they were "told" it was going to collapse? Did you actually read their testimonies? They stated that they personally inspected and assessed the damage. Again, were they lying?



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by RockLobster
 




Also you must remember, steel construction structures are more like erector sets, and less like solid blocks. When it fails, it is not just going to fall over in one piece. All the connections are going to overload rapidly and fail.

As you can see, what we see is the shell collapsing. The center falls towards the south, while the east side falls over on top. It fell apart in segments.
edit on 4/7/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Dont you just love their logic?

"I'm not calling them a liar! But they are lying! But I never called them a liar!"




posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Actually it falls IN on its self , there is no lean.

The fireman , look at him , he`s clearly just come out of there and he`s all shook up , he`s just as confused as everyone else. That is not an insult.

Where are you getting with this , insulting a fireman , crap ? do you expect me to drop over 10 years of research just incase some one tells me i`m insulting firemen ?


"Pull it" was used as an order to detonate the charges.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Dont you just love their logic?

"I'm not calling them a liar! But they are lying! But I never called them a liar!"





Isnt this kind of ignorance supposed to be un welcome on this website ?
2nd



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


If they claim to have inspected the damage and decided it was going to collapse, then yes , they were lying. The damage to tower 7 was not enough for it to collapse , how hard is this for you to understand ?



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by RockLobster
 


Ok, well he can see the building was leaning. Others stated that it was leaning, and bulging, and creaking, and burning, and they even had to put a transit on it to follow the movement. If it was in no danger, then why did they bother putting a transit on it?

Here you have a firefighter who can tell it is off kilter. But no, of course to you, he is tired, confused, and just cannot think straight.

Also, since you claim that pulling it means blowing it up, can you direct me to a list of buildings the NYFD has explosively demoed in the past 30 years? After all, the fire dept is the one that decided to "blow it up" according to you. So are the firefighters in on it?



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Demigodly

This is an inferno
www.youtube.com...

The Windsor Tower burned for 24 hrs and never collapsed.

If I'm a 'truther' does that make you a 'falser'?


And what was left standing? Oh yes, the steel reenforced concrete core. What happened to the rest of the building? It collapsed after being on fire for 3 hours. Where was the comparable core in the WTC7?

As for being a "truther", truthers seem to put out quite a bit of lies. Why is that? I believe it is an ironic label.



Part of it collapsed, as it should.. the whole building was consumed/gutted by fire and most of the building held up. Your comparison is pointless.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Quote the exact text that you are referring to, because i have never said the NYFD blew it up.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by RockLobster
 


Ok, well he can see the building was leaning. Others stated that it was leaning, and bulging, and creaking, and burning, and they even had to put a transit on it to follow the movement. If it was in no danger, then why did they bother putting a transit on it?

Here you have a firefighter who can tell it is off kilter. But no, of course to you, he is tired, confused, and just cannot think straight.

Also, since you claim that pulling it means blowing it up, can you direct me to a list of buildings the NYFD has explosively demoed in the past 30 years? After all, the fire dept is the one that decided to "blow it up" according to you. So are the firefighters in on it?



The building was leaning!!?? HAHAHAHA Even the most ardent deniers on youtube never used that one! lol



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by RockLobster
 



"Pull it" was used as an order to detonate the charges.


There you go.

And who made the decision to pull?


"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."


So, you claim that the NYFD blew up WTC7. Quit this denial game and admit it already. Larry was talking wit the fire commander, THEY made the decision to pull. Ergo, the fire dept blew it up. You say that the "pull it" order was to set off the charges to blow it up. So YOU are making the claim that the NYFD blew up WTC7. Do I have to spell it out for you? Now, I want you to go back, and give me a list of all the buildings in the past 30 years blown up by the NYFD.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join